Today, I examine the results from a question prompted by the analysis in the last installment (see Small Figures and Large Collections).
The question asked was,
"Do people with very large collections enjoy painting? Or is that something they have someone else do? It strikes me that MCA for collection size, type of game and preferred hobby aspects could be interesting. I would assume (but I might be wrong) that big battles are the goal of those big collections."
An interesting question. Several actually!
First off, congratulations for suggesting that Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) might be a useful tool for exploring these questions. MCA offers a handy and useful tool for many studies of categorical data.
Who actually handles the figure painting task is not asked in the 2024 survey but may have been asked in an earlier year's survey. Given the questions in the 2024 survey, that question cannot be addressed. Similarly, while big battles and big collections may go hand-in-hand (this analysis will take a look at any relative relationship there), inferring a directional cause and effect is not possible without asking more specific questions.
Given those caveats, we can examine relative relationships between large collections, the number of models present in a game, and the joy of painting.
To begin, let's look at the counts of the key variables under study. Those variables are Collection Size, Game Size, and Top Hobby Facets (preferred hobby aspects in original question). These frequency charts will be useful to reference throughout the analysis.
Collection Size
Game Size
Top Facet of Wargaming
Out of curiosity, the Top 3 facets for each respondent were aggregated and then graphed. While the ordering is similar for Top 3 and Top 1, Playing surpasses Painting in the top position.
MCA
To begin, all of the values for each of the three variables are included in the initial MCA. Plotting the results, Game Size of 1,000+ models and Collection Size greater than 25,000 are classified as outliers and will be removed from the next iteration.
 |
| Iteration 1 |
 |
| Iteration 2 |
 |
| MCA 1 |
 |
| MCA 2 |
If focusing only on Collection Size, does this clustering look familiar? Yes. MCA 2 looks very similar to the graphic from the recent Small Figures and Large Collections analysis referenced in the first sentence above. Of course, each has a differing collection of variables present.
 |
| Small Figures and Large Collections |
Notice that in MCA 2, collections of 100 or fewer figures load in the blue quadrant along with using only 2-10 models per side. Collections greater than 5,000 figures cluster into the yellow quadrant and this group tends to gravitate toward larger battles having 201-1000 models per side. The green quadrant tends to have larger collections and larger games than the blue quadrant while the orange quadrant tends toward large collections and larger games than the green quadrant.
 |
| MCA 3 |
Interesting result. Given that the analysis tends to pair ordered collection size with an equivalent ordered game size, two questions emerge. That is, does a gamer's collection size drive the preferred size of a game or does preferred size of a game lead to a particular collection size? Which comes first? Looking at the Small quadrant, for example, does having a collection size of one hundred or fewer figures necessitate games being played with from two to ten models per side or does favoring games with between two and ten figures per side drive the tendency to have collections of one hundred or fewer models? Interesting point to ponder.
Now to address the reader's first question on collection size and painting enjoyment. What does this analysis suggest? Do gamers with very large collections enjoy painting as much as gamers having collections of a different size?
 |
| MCA 4 |
Interesting stuff! Thanks for the follow-up questions!
Now, where do you fit into this scheme or do you fit at all? Do the relative relationship tendencies brought up here between collect size and game size hold true?
Remember that today is the last day to submit your 2025 survey.
I definitely fit into the large figure collection who enjoys painting my own figures. Though I do prefer gaming to painting, I developed a style to allow me to paint figures quickly so that I can game.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your feedback, Neil! Your painting style definitely allows to produce large numbers of figures quickly!
DeleteI get a lot of enjoyment out of painting but the satisfaction definitely comes from being able to field a painted army in a game. As an example, we always play 400 points in our Ancient games which is a comfortable number and forces the players to make decisions about force composition but, depending on the list, I can sometimes find myself painting two to three times that points value. The army sizes are therefore dictated by the rules and ensuring I do enough to cover most, if not all, possible variants within each list.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, Lawrence, that rules dictate army size and by necessity, the variety of armies available. Where do you drop into the graph? Super Sized or Large?
DeleteSuper-sized for me Jonathan, although I can happily say I have never done that to a takeaway meal.
DeleteThanks, Lawrence! I was not sure if my fast food meal reference would fit globally but I guess it does. We only export our finest culture.
DeleteMy painting has come from 'get the units done' to ' have fun with each unit. ' Watching the pieces, lead or plastic, take on an identity through the application of colors can still be an enjoyable process. I know that my collection is over three but under six thousand pieces in all the scales and periods. A player can effectively use 350 castings or less in a game set for three to four hours of play. If I only have 1 figure on the table I would guess the game is over in under three minutes.
ReplyDeleteJoe, thank you for your response to the question and analysis. Good point about production. When beginning a new project, i want to see more immediate gratification too. Once established, adding another unit can be more enjoyable. I have played many a gladiator game with single figure forces that took much longer than three minutes to conclude.
DeleteI usually trip on the net. Interestingly, I am painting Battletech mechs and Galactic Knight spaceships in the last few weeks because of 'holes' in my collections. In Battletech for two months, so that makes sense. In Galactic Knights , twenty years of play and for the first name only
DeleteTripping on the net? That’s funny! I have not played a gladiator game in more years than I remember. Sci-fi on the front burner for now. I await results!
DeleteAnother interesting post, I like painting my own figures although I have purchased a fair few painted by others. doing them myself offers a little bit of escapism I guess, nothing but the task ahead takes my attention. I would come under the medium as games would have between 200 to 300 figures on the table, restricted a bit by table size I would say, but works for me.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Donnie! Glad you found this analysis interesting. Is that 200-300 figures on table per army or in total?
DeletePer army Jon.
DeleteThank you!
DeleteI think, based upon my experience at clubs and my games, that the rules dictate the game size and therefore the 'army'. Looking at magazines etc and the predominance of GW and Warlord Games, it doesn't surprise me that most games would appear to fit into the Section-Platoon sized actions, so 10-50 figures give or take. Certainly in years gone by when playing Mordheim, I only ever needed about 20 models for a Warband, giving me options as the campaign progressed or for the scenario being played.
ReplyDeleteThese days, with Battalion plus games for WWII, I'm probably fielding maybe 20-30 units per side, so maybe around 100-150 figures per side. This might go up when playing say the SYW or the ACW to maybe 300 figures per side in 3 Brigades, give or take.
So for Mordheim with few figures, the enjoyment would be very much driven by the converting and painting relatively few figures, compared now to 10mm where it is very much the overall look of the regiment etc that is more important. The enjoyment is probably the say, but the focus has switched to a more zoomed out, arms length approach.
Excellent assessment of what you see and practice, Steve. Thank you!
DeleteI enjoy painting but it is also a means to an end as I don’t like unpainted figures on my gaming table. The number of figures on the table is a function of the game rules being used in many cases for example DBA where the fixed 12 base army and fixed number of figures determine the army size. Other rule sets are expandable but limited by game table size and the players preference for troop density in a game.
ReplyDeleteExcellent! Another vote for rules driving figure density.
DeleteI did write down my responses this year, if I don't lose them in the interim - Collection size 15,000 to 25,000, Games 250+ figures a side on the table, Painting wasn't in my top 3 reasons (Playing, Friends, Collecting), but then I commented that I like it all! Number of Periods played also influences collection size, but the survey only captures top 3 [I listed Napoleonic, Pike and Shot, and Ancients this year].
ReplyDeleteThanks, Peter! Having many interests and many collections, like you, my top choices move around a bit from year to year. Save your answers for when I address similar questions when this year’s data roll out.
DeleteAnother distant relative of data that might influence the final mix is where one sits on how long they have been in the hobby. ‘Length of service’ will likely see more figures in a collection that have been painted / collected over a longer period of time. Also that can be separated out as having either a lot of figures in a couple of favoured periods, or smaller armies that are set over plenty of periods and interest or in fact anywhere along that trajectory.
ReplyDeleteI would tend to favour the divisional size game, which would default to 3 - 4 brigades. Table size would then determine that each brigade would likely only have three units, so an ideal for me would be 9 - 12 units per side in a game.
I think ‘units’ is a more helpful term than figure count, because my 28mm Napoleonic Infantry units have 20 figures, my Epic Napoleonics have 60. I would say that for me a realistic translation of the number of figures I would want on the table would be around 200 per side (measured in 28’s), though I could equally measure the same ‘sized’ army as 600 figures per side in an Epic Scale game, so just calling that army as being 10 units might be a better term overall.
Regardless, I hugely prefer gaming to the painting. The painting is just an end to a means and recently I have come to feel that my hobby balance is out of kilter, with too many of my hobby hours spent on painting - the consequence being a squeeze on my time spent with boardgaming rather than figure gaming.
It is though, something that I have particularly recognised over recent weeks and I am once again re-structuring to bring the kind of balance back that I want ….. accepting that painting will always be a necessary aspect to ‘servicing’ my wants.
Thanks for adding your insights into the conversation, Norm!
DeleteYes, Length of Service (Duration in survey parlance) is correlated with collection size. I made mention of this relationship in an earlier post. Better to refrain from adding in too many highly correlated variables into the analysis. Besides, the reader asked a specific question covering specific variables.
The 2025 survey added a question about unit counts on the table and covered this topic in two questions. I am not sure that a switch to counting units is any better than counting figures. Both leave out the information on figure scale and as you note, smaller figures may have more figures per unit. I figure that asking respondents to estimate total collection size rather than account for number of figures by figure scale is an easier ask. That might be an impossible task for many or too much work to even consider asking as a question.
As for your preference to game over paint, was this always the case? When you had relatively small armies, was painting a higher priority?
We all must make trade-offs with our hobby time. Like you, I would enjoy returning to some boardgaming but most of my time is consumed in activities in the miniature wargaming world.
In my case, actual gaming has always seemed to chase painting time, though part of that is the self inflicted chopping and changing of interests and scales. I am trying to re-assert boardgaming as a prime hobby activity and I think that this more than anything has highlighted the ‘robbing nature’ of increased time spent painting over the past couple of years. I am making a conscious effort to reduce painting hours.
DeleteI wish you well in your quest, Norm! My time at the painting desk is falling off too although I still have a HUGE pile of lead to work through. Painting, for me, is not the priority that it once was. Still, I enjoy cranking out new units.
DeleteI find the question I am most often asked by non gamers is, "How many do you have?" It's not something I ever think of as the total is less important than the numbers in a particular period. Yes, I really don't know beyond a bit of a guess.
ReplyDeleteMy collection grows slowly through time available and painting technique but has been been added to over a lifetime and rose sharply when I inherited half of my Dad's collection. [My brother has the other half]
The size of the games I play is mainly shaped by the size of table available [the old 6'x4'] and secondly by the rules I enjoy. The third factor is the number of figures I have for a period I want to game. [Napoleonics languish because I've too many for my table size and struggle to field just parts of the forces - perhaps a campaign is the answer but even then there's a tendency for the troops to come together for the titanic finale].
Relatively new to me are games with less than 20 often less than 10 figures a side through new rulesets bought. Often these need a smaller table size than the 6'x4' leaving room for the rulebook, dice, and other paraphernalia.
To conclude - for me the main factor in the size of game is table size [though playing solo at home is part of that]
Stephen
[Reasons to play solo is another question altogether. A key factor for me is that regular moves mean leaving behind friends I've gamed with and not always finding new ones quickly. A secondary factor it took me time to discover is that playing solo gets my toys on the table, playing with friends and at clubs often means leaving mine in the box to play with someone else's collection especially if it's a period I don't collect [painting stuff because it is/was someone else's interest is yet another topic]. So a reason to play solo is preferring to see my own troops in action in the relatively obscure periods I collect].
Stephen
Interesting response, Stephen! Thank you!
DeleteI imagine many wargamers (and many of the survey respondents) are in a similar situation as you. That is, they really do not know exactly (or even vaguely) know how many figures are actually present in their collections.
Interesting that table size is main driver of your collection size. I have collections covering many periods and none of them make it to the table at once. I suppose if a wargamer has more restraint than I then table size could be an important factor. As others have mentioned, rules' choice is a contributing factor as well. Perhaps a question that addresses this topic might be of interest in a future survey? I will think about this over the next year.
Solo play and why a gamer chooses to do so might be an interesting question too. Off hand, I do not recall what percent of survey respondents prefer solo gaming. I will look into that to satisfy my own curiosity.
Thanks again for your comprehensive reply!
Stephen (and your reply) hit on the point that leaped out at me: near 47% of respondents have 500 or fewer figures? I say 'he' to that. I reckon they have not counted them and so made an (under) estimate. The first time that I seriously answered the question 'how many do you have' I guessed around a couple of thousand. It was over twice that when I counted them. I have kept a database of the number ever since, judiciously adding in every acquisition. For me that is an enjoyable part of the 'collecting' aspect of the hobby that a few people have mentioned above and which rated highly in the responses.
DeleteBest wishes, James
p.s. I was pleased to be in a group of 7% and 2% outliers that was expunged from the analysis. "Yes, we are all individual", hahahahahaha!!
p.p.s. Historical orders of battle dictate the 'requirement' for figures at the scale at which one wishes to represent them. This drives trying to find or develop rules that will allow portrayal of this in a meaningful way on the tabletop. See why I am in a 2% category? 😀
Without knowing actual counts of painted figures, I would likely under-estimate collection by a wide margin too. Now, the unpainted pile, I have no idea how many may be stacked up but. Wager my guess would be no where close to the actual numbers. I would under-estimate this pile by an even larger margin! My painted figure collection size saw me knocked out as an outlier in the first iteration too!
DeleteI have started to write something re this a couple of times Jon, but could not get my thoughts together.
ReplyDeleteInteresting stuff as always, I am not sure how any of it applies to me however!
I have large collections and enjoy painting but to be honest, nowadays I generally prefer smaller sized games. (Depends on our definition of "small" of course!)
I can't see me stopping buying and painting figures any time soon, not because I don't already have plenty, but because there are always more figures I would like to paint and add to my collection!
Glad you put hands to keyboard! My guess is that you are in the Super Size cluster with a tendency to paint more than that group. Our painting will probably never stop, will it? For smaller sized games, how many figures per side do you prefer? Some of Mark’s games must have many hundreds of figures per side. With your increase in weekly solo games, what did you put down for gaming group size this year?
DeleteI was going to comment but found that it's all been covered by the excellent contributions above.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis is always a fascinating read.
Thank you, Richard!
DeleteAn interesting post and discussion Jon. For my 3 cents worth- painting for me has been a way to build armies up as my painting style has improved. Any figures from 20+ years ago that I painted- the vast bulk of them have been sold/traded or given away as I was never happy with my paint job. Many of my earlier armies that I still have were painted by others and I was happy to keep them. But when I finally got to a standard I was happy with ( and no it's not magazine/display level) I tend to hesitate to sell them off. The vast bulk of my figures I have painted myself- and my biggest collection of a specific period numbers in the many many thousands. It is rare that I get figures painted by anyone else nowadays. As many of your responses above have said, I get a lot of enjoyment out of painting, but the satisfaction definitely comes from being able to field a painted army in a game. My games can have only a couple of dozen figures, to several thousand. That sort of differentiation makes the hobby so appealing!
ReplyDeleteHappy to accept your 3 cents, John!
DeleteLike you (and many others) I enjoy painting my own troops. I have only paid for painted figures a handful of times. Probably less than 100 figures out of roughly 35,000! I do enjoy seeing my armies out on the table, probably, like everyone else!
Thanks for your comments!